Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?

MGibster · Jun 13, 2019

Riley37 said:
Does he seem proud, sad, angry? I recognized that Luke killed in self-defense; but if I ever kill a fellow human, I *expect* to have strong, unpleasant feelings, as soon as the situation allows me to drop out of fight-or-flight mode. Even if I am simultaneously proud of my skills, and proud of my successful defense of myself and/or others.

You might be surprised. Many soldiers have stated they experienced a feeling of elation after killing the enemy. They might feel bad when they get a chance to reflect upon it later but in the immediate aftermath? Often it's joy. The killed the people who were trying to kill them, they won, and they survived. Happy times.

lowkey13 · Jun 13, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Bedrockgames · Jun 13, 2019

lowkey13 said:
1. The media I consume is much, much, much more comfortable with the depiction of violence. I mean- sure, there was some violent and transgressive stuff in the lates 70s and early 80s, of course, but it's somewhat interesting to me how much more mainstream it is in all media. From video games (do you remember when the original Mortal Kombat was a BIG DEAL) to movies (ahem, JW3) to tv (GoT etc.). Arguably, this started in the 80s and has just accelerated.

Was there a reason for quoting me (just genuinely not sure and not sure if you were inviting a reply)

Celebrim · Jun 13, 2019

MGibster said:
You might be surprised. Many soldiers have stated they experienced a feeling of elation after killing the enemy. They might feel bad when they get a chance to reflect upon it later but in the immediate aftermath? Often it's joy. The killed the people who were trying to kill them, they won, and they survived. Happy times.

Feeling bad about killing is a heavily conditioned response, and so far as I can tell is not natural. And, even if it were, the vast majority of civilizations in world history have built their culture around celebrating martial prowess and victory, and were ruled over by a martial elite class. The easiest way to achieve social and economic mobility was to kill your civilizations enemies. Until relatively recently, in many societies a young male couldn't even hope to marry unless he achieved a certain level of above average social standing and economic success, so most societies - from North American aboriginals, to Scottish Highlanders, to the steppes of Asia, and on and on - had a huge surplus of unmarried young men eager to kill other unmarried young men. That was human culture worldwide for most of humanities existence, so much so that evidence for it is written into our genes, and you can mark in the genetic code where the culture started to shift.

Guest 6801328 · Jun 13, 2019

Celebrim said:
Feeling bad about killing is a heavily conditioned response, and so far as I can tell is not natural.

I thought it was the other way around: the military puts a whole lotta effort into un-conditioning new recruits, so that they won't be all conflicted about it when the moment comes. And that this is why the military actively promotes derogatory slurs for people of whatever state they happen to be fighting. To de-humanize the enemy.

Bedrockgames · Jun 13, 2019

Celebrim said:
Feeling bad about killing is a heavily conditioned response, and so far as I can tell is not natural. And, even if it were, the vast majority of civilizations in world history have built their culture around celebrating martial prowess and victory, and were ruled over by a martial elite class. The easiest way to achieve social and economic mobility was to kill your civilizations enemies. Until relatively recently, in many societies a young male couldn't even hope to marry unless he achieved a certain level of above average social standing and economic success, so most societies - from North American aboriginals, to Scottish Highlanders, to the steppes of Asia, and on and on - had a huge surplus of unmarried young men eager to kill other unmarried young men. That was human culture worldwide for most of humanities existence, so much so that evidence for it is written into our genes, and you can mark in the genetic code where the culture started to shift.

I am pretty sure when soldiers go to war militaries have to work against a natural aversion to killing other people. This seems like an extreme simplification. Even if you look at a lot of those ancient armies, many of them were professional, others were class or caste based, not everyone was involved in the fighting.

Bedrockgames · Jun 13, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
And that this is why the military actively promotes derogatory slurs for people of whatever state they happen to be fighting. To de-humanize the enemy.

This doesn't sound like it is true, or at the very least not true for a very long time (been googling it and can't find much); do you have sources on this? This doesn't match what I've heard from people in the military I've spoken with.

lowkey13 · Jun 13, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Umbran · Jun 13, 2019

Celebrim said:
Feeling bad about killing is a heavily conditioned response, and so far as I can tell is not natural.

You say that as if humans *have* an identifiable "natural state" - we are a tribal, social species and an extremely extended infant period compared to other animals. We, more than any other creature on the planet, are focused on *learned* behavior, not inborn, "natural" behavior. What is natural for us is to try out a large number of different behaviors, and see what works.

I will push back on the idea that, since very young kids can be observed being rough with each other, that violence is the human "natural state". Human children are not born with a full suite of natural behaviors that they get conditioned out of. Human children are more blank slates - they *experiment* with behaviors, and they observe the behaviors of others, and they learn and develop.

Note: learning and developing are not synonymous. Some learned behaviors can be unlearned. Some behaviors come from how brain structure develops over time, and that can be difficult or impossible to undo.

Guest 6801328 · Jun 13, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
This doesn't sound like it is true, or at the very least not true for a very long time (been googling it and can't find much); do you have sources on this? This doesn't match what I've heard from people in the military I've spoken with.

My original source was my grandfather, describing his training for WWII. However, this is the first thing that popped up for me on Google: https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/THE-SCIENCE-OF-CREATING-KILLERS-Human-2514123.php. (EDIT: I just realized you only quoted the second half of my post. No, it doesn't mention the derogatory slurs thing. I'll go look for that. EDIT2: Nope, first page of results on first search didn't turn up anything. But I'll continue to believe my grandfather.)

Pithy quote:

The FBI discovered a similar problem among law enforcement officers through the early 1960s: a startling number were refusing to fire at suspects even when other lives were endangered.
Even those who fired their weapons were not necessarily trying to kill -- it is hard for an observer to detect soldiers or cops who fire high to intentionally miss.
Psychologists who advised the military and law enforcement agencies began to push for changes that would revolutionize training to improve kill rates. Their methods -- familiar to those who operate boot camps, police academies and aggressive-response self-defense courses -- are a distasteful mystery to most in the outside world. But they work.
The Pentagon improved firing rates. Research suggests that 55 percent of U.S. soldiers fired on the enemy in the Korean War. By Vietnam that rate had climbed to more than 90 percent. Police studies document similar changes in recent decades.

For somebody who doesn't want to believe this, it would be pretty easy to just say, "Yeah but that's a newspaper...from liberal San Francisco. Where's the peer reviewed clinical research?" And my answer would be: "I dunno. It's not a high enough priority for me that I'm going to go looking."

EDIT: And just to honor my grandfather, who died a few years ago, I want to mention that for decades he claimed he had been on Guam, doing supply stuff. Just before he died he was at a doctor's appointment with one of my aunts. The doctor, while chatting him up, asked if he was in the war, and what unit he was in. My grandfather told him. The doctor turns out to be a military history buff, and looked startled. He said, "So you were on Iwo Jima." My aunt scoffed, "No! He wasn't on Iwo Jima!" My grandfather said, "Yeah, I was," and started sobbing. It was literally the first time he talked about it since coming home.